-
96
Putting Public Trust Doctrine to Work: A Study of Judicial
Intervention
in Environmental Justice
Muhammad Wajid Munir*
This article analyses the judicial intervention in enforcing
the
Public Trust Doctrine (‗PTD‘) in Pakistan. According to the
PTD, a government is responsible to protect certain natural
resources like clean air, water, rivers, public parks, and
forests. The government acts as a trustee to protect these
unique natural resources. This article critically examines
the
application of the PTD by the superior judiciary in Pakistan.
It
does so by tracing out the theoretical framework, origin,
and
background of the PTD. The article analyses the development,
application, and geological scope of this doctrine in
Pakistan
by critically examining the leading case law. It is argued
that
the superior judiciary in Pakistan has applied this doctrine
in
two ways — directly and impliedly. It has done so by relying
on Indian and American case law and leading international
environmental treaties. This article examines two widely
applicable tests namely, the ‗Legislative Test Approach‘ and
the ‗Substantive Test Approach‘ to assess the scope of the
PTD. Finally, the article traces the limitations of the PTD.
It
concludes with the suggestion that policy makers should
treat
environmental rights as fundamental human rights by
including it in Part II, Chapter I of the Constitution of
Islamic
Republic of Pakistan 1973.
Introduction
Professor Joseph Sax1 expounded the Public Trust Doctrine
(‗PTD‘) in 1970
in his influential study ‗The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural
Resource Law:
Effective Judicial Intervention‘. It is based on the Roman
concept of
common properties (res communis).2 Before Professor Sax‘s
article, the PTD
appeared into English (Magna Carta 1215) and American
jurisprudence
* LL.M (Corporate Law), and LLB (Hons) Shariah & Law,
International Islamic University,
Islamabad. 1 Joseph Sax was Professor of Law at the University
of Michigan. He also drafted the
Michigan Environment Protection Act (MEPA). 2 Joseph L. Sax,
‘Liberating the Public Trust Doctrine from its Historical Shackles‘
(1980)
14 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 185.
-
Putting Public Trust Doctrine to Work: A Study of Judicial
Intervention in Environmental
Justice
97
(Arnold v Mundy)3 via legislation and court decisions
respectively. The PTD
stipulates that certain resources are held in trust in the hands
of sovereigns
and cannot be given away to private citizens arbitrarily. It
means that states
have a general duty to act for the benefit of the public, and a
special duty to
act as trustee to preserve these resources. In other words,
certain natural
resources are held as a public trust and the governments, being
the chosen
representative of the public, are supposed to act as the
trustees of these
resources. Moreover, every citizen enjoys the right to file a
suit against
government authorities to hold them accountable for their
treatment of these
resources in the designated judicial body. Environmental
experts, such as
James Huffman, criticise the PTD‘s common law historical roots.
Critics
point out that the doctrine violates the property rights of
individuals, the
concept of popular sovereignty, and the doctrine of separation
of powers.
They also criticise the role of the judiciary in the application
of the PTD
instead of relying on the statutory laws in violation of the
doctrine of
separation of powers.
In Pakistan, the Shehla Zia case is the seminal case on
environmental
jurisprudence, and it sets the tone for the judiciary to
dispense environmental
justice.4 The Supreme Court of Pakistan (‗SC‘) relied on Indian
case law, the
latest environmental research – primarily relying on the
‗Precautionary
Principle‘,5 and leading environmental law treaties such as the
Rio
Declaration 1992 to declare that the ‗right to life‘ included
the right to live in
a healthy environment. The procedure adopted in the Shehla Zia
case has
been consistently followed by the judiciary in all subsequent
environmental
law cases. There are a few pertinent questions that need to be
addressed.
Mainly, how is the judiciary applying this doctrine in Pakistan?
Moreover,
what is the methodology being employed by judges in Pakistan and
how is it
different from the methodology used in other civil cases? This
essay will also
go on to reflect on the scope of the PTD and different
approaches that will be
required to determine it.
Judiciary in Pakistan has tried to answer the abovementioned
questions in various cases by engaging leading environmentalists
such as Dr.
3 Arnold v Mundy [1821] 6 N.J.L. 1.
4 Shehla Zia v WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693.
5 The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992,
principle 15. It states:
‗In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach
shall be widely applied
by States according to their capabilities. Where there are
threats of serious or irreversible
damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a
reason for postponing cost-
effective measures to prevent environmental degradation‘.
accessed 6 October 2017.
http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/RIO_E.PDF
-
LUMS Law Journal 2017: 4 (1)
98
Pervez Hassan6 and relying on academic debates, environmental
treaties, and
comparative case law, primarily from India and the United States
of
America. The judiciary has applied this distinctive doctrine in
two ways –
directly and impliedly. The Sindh Institute of Urology and
Transplantation
case was the first instance where the court applied the PTD
directly.7
Previously, the courts had only applied it impliedly without
making a
specific reference to the PTD. Later, Justice Tassaduq Hussain
Jillani
elaborated on the PTD and described its scope and parameters in
the suo
moto case relating to the matter of cutting of trees in Lahore
to widen the
canal.8 Recently in 2015, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, in the
case of
Imrana Tiwana invoked the PTD and also enlarged its
theoretical
framework.9 The significant aspect of this doctrine is that it
regards
environmental rights as fundamental human rights. Likewise, the
doctrine
guarantees the right to a healthy environment which has not been
expressly
protected by the framers of the Constitution.
This article investigates the application of the PTD by the
superior
courts in Pakistan. The article is divided into five parts. Part
I elaborates the
theoretical framework of the PTD, as expounded by Joseph Sax,
by
discussing the fiduciary duty of public institutions to preserve
certain public
resources. Subsequently, the relation of trust, trustee, and the
beneficiary is
discussed in terms of the PTD. Part II surveys the origin and
background of
the PTD by examining its historical roots starting from the
Roman emperor
Justinian and its development in England, America, and India.
Part III
analyses the development and the application of the PTD in
Pakistan. It also
critically evaluates the direct and implied application of the
PTD by the
superior judiciary in Pakistan and the methodology employed by
and relief
granted by the courts. Part IV surveys the geological scope and
the
parameters of the PTD. It also discusses two approaches: ‗the
Legislative
approach‘ and ‗Substantive approach‘ to determine the scope of
the
application of the PTD. Part V traces the limitations of the
PTD. The article
concludes with a suggestion that policy makers should treat
environmental
rights as fundamental human rights and include it in Part II,
Chapter I of the
Constitution as has been done in Article 24 of the Constitution
of South
Africa 1997.
6 Senior Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan. He chaired the
panel which drafted the
Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 2007. He also drafted the
Pakistan Environmental
Protection Ordinance, 1983. 7 Sindh Institute of Urology and
Transplantation v Nestle Milkpak Limited 2005 CLC 424.
8 Cutting of Trees for Canal Widening Project Lahore 2011 SCMR
1743.
9 Imrana Tiwana v Province of Punjab PLD 2015 Lahore 522.
-
Putting Public Trust Doctrine to Work: A Study of Judicial
Intervention in Environmental
Justice
99
Theoretical Framework
The PTD stipulates that the state has a fiduciary duty to
protect certain
natural resources like air, water, parks, wild life, rivers,
lakes, and forests for
the benefit of the general public and future generations. The
governmental
institutions act as trustees to safeguard these natural
resources and the
public.10
This doctrine empowers a state to act as a trustee to manage
these
public resources since the title of these resources is vested in
the state.
Hence, the state has a fiduciary obligation to preserve these
resources.11
Therefore, a sovereign cannot alienate these resources to
private citizens,
because the resources are inherently public. The PTD gives a
cause of action
to the public against any person who interferes with the
enjoyment of these
resources as well as against the state which fails to protect
them. Further, the
judiciary can hold a sovereign accountable in the event of
neglect or failure
to protect the natural resources. This doctrine is a powerful
tool to compel
administrators and legislators to recognize the public‘s right
to a healthy
environment and allows the judiciary to take a proactive
approach in terms of
environmental protection. The primary aim of the doctrine is to
provide a
much-needed legal avenue to protect environmental rights.
Professor Sax explains the doctrine in his influential article
‗The
Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective
Judicial
Intervention‘ in terms of the preservation of natural resources
by a sovereign
as a trustee, its exclusive usage by the general public, and the
non-alienation
of public resources to private parties.12
For justification of the doctrine,
Professor Serena Williams describes three conceptual principles
taken from
Joseph Sax‘s article. First, ‗certain interests are so
intrinsically important to
every citizen that their free availability tends to mark the
society as one of
the citizens rather than of serfs‘. Second, ‗certain interests
are so particularly
the gifts of nature‘s bounty that they ought to be reserved for
the whole of
the populace‘. Third, ‗certain uses have a peculiarly public
nature that makes
their adaptation to private use inappropriate‘.13
While analysing the case of
Illinois Central Railroad,14
David Takacs describes the essential elements of
10
Dave Owen, ‗The Mono Lake Case, the Public Trust Doctrine, and
the Administrative
State‘ (2011) 45 UCDL Rev. 1099-1107. 11
Hope M. Babcock, ‘The Public Trust Doctrine: What a Tall Tale
They Tell‘ (2009) 61
S.C.L. Rev. 393. 12
Joseph L. Sax, ‗The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource
Law: Effective Judicial
Intervention‘ (1970) 68 (3) Mich. L. Rev. 471, 477. 13
Serena M. Williams, ‗Sustaining Urban Green Spaces: Can Public
Parks Be Protected
Under the Public Trust Doctrine?‘ (2002) 10 SC Envtl LJ 23, 31.
14
Illinois Central Railroad v Illinois (1892) 146 U.S. 387.
-
LUMS Law Journal 2017: 4 (1)
100
the PTD in his influential article ‗the Public Trust Doctrine,
Environmental
Rights, and the future of Private Property‘. A government
maintains certain
resources for the enjoyment of the public. Thus, judicial acts
in relation to
the application of the PTD even though may seem against the
separation of
powers, serve democracy by preserving these rights for the
people.15
In
simple terms, certain natural resources are held in an
inalienable public trust
with the government acting as a trustee. Furthermore, any person
in his
capacity as a beneficiary can institute a suit against the
violator of these
resources and against the state for failing to protect these
resources.16
The
PTD functions as a public easement, which allows public access
to natural
resources without infringing the property rights of other
individuals.17
The PTD imposes some restrictions on government authorities.
Firstly, it is the duty of the state to provide access to these
natural resources
to members of the public without any interference. Secondly, the
government
must not sell these natural resources or property to private
individuals.
Lastly, these resources should be utilized for a specific
purpose. To clarify
the last point, Professor Sax gives an example of the San
Francisco Bay,
which must be used for commercial or amenity purposes and must
not be
used for trash disposal or any other housing project.18
The courts must
recognize the dual nature of governmental duties in enforcing
the PTD.19
The PTD serves two important purposes. Firstly, it forces
government officials to manage natural resources in a
conservative and
productive way. Secondly, it authorizes the citizens to hold the
relevant
government officials accountable before the designated judicial
forum.20
Further, the PTD gives a cause of action to the general public
against private
parties who interfere with these resources and against the
government
officials for breach of their duties as trustees.21
Nevertheless, the most
important feature of the PTD is that it ensures the right to a
healthy
15
David Takacs, ‗The Public Trust Doctrine, Environmental Human
Rights, and the Future
of Private Property‘ (2008) 16 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 711. 16
Peter H. Sand, ‗Global Environmental Change and the
Nation-state: Sovereignty
Bounder?‘ in Gerd Winter (ed), Multilevel Governance of Global
Environmental Change:
Perspectives From Science, Sociology, and the Law (Cambridge
University Press 2006) 523. 17
(n 10) 1120. 18
(n 14) 477. 19
Ibid, 478. 20
(n 8) [23]. 21
Bradley C Karkkainen, ‗NEPA and the curious evolution of
environmental impact
assessment in the United States‘ in Jane Holder and Donald
McGillivray (eds), Taking Stock
of Environmental Assessment: Law, Policy and Practice (Routledge
2007) 52.
-
Putting Public Trust Doctrine to Work: A Study of Judicial
Intervention in Environmental
Justice
101
environment besides the right to life, which is not expressly
protected in the
Constitution.22
In sum, public institutions must conserve natural resources for
future
generations. These resources should be preserved for future
generations and
be utilized for sustainable development by not being neglected
and/or being
impaired by private parties.
Origin and Background
The PTD is a common law doctrine, which has its roots in Roman
and
English Law.23
Justinian codified the PTD – jus publicum24
(Public Affair) –
in Corpus Juris Civilis about 529 B.C. in following words: ‗by
the law of
nature these things are common to all mankind, the air, running
water, the
sea and consequently the shores of the sea‘.25
On the other hand, Patrick
Deveney contends that the concept was first developed by the
third-century
jurist Marcian.26
Following that, an English Judge, Justice Henry Bracton,
declared that the concept of jus publicum is also a part of the
law of
England.27
In addition, Charles Wilkinson traced out the reference to
public
trust in Chinese water law 249-207 B.C., Islamic water law,
traditional
customs of Nigeria, medieval Spain, and medieval France.28
In 1215, in England, the Magna Carta codified this concept29
around
the same time as when King John failed to protect his friends‘
exclusive
rights to fishing and hunting in 1225.30
Subsequently, in 1821, the PTD
22
Jona Razzaque, ‗Participatory Rights in Natural Resource
Management: The Role of
Communities in South Asia‘ cited in Jonas Ebbesson and Phoebe
Okowa, Environmental
Law and Justice in Context (Cambridge University Press 2009)
120. 23
(n 11) 396. 24
James L. Huffman, ‗Speaking of Inconvenient Truths—A History of
the Public Trust
Doctrine‘ (2007) 18 Duke Envtl. L. & Pol’y F. 1. 25
(n 17) 713. 26
(n 26) 16. 27
Ibid, 10. 28
Charles F. Wilkinson, ‗The Headwaters of the Public Trust: Some
Thoughts on the Source
and Scope of the Traditional Doctrine‘ (1989) 19 Envtl L. 425,
426. 29
(n 26) 19 - Chapter 16 of Magna Carta states: ‗No riverbanks
shall be placed in defense
from henceforth except such as were so placed in the time of
King Henry, our grandfather,
by the same places and the same bounds as they were wont to be
in his time‘; (n 26) 20 -
Chapter 23 of Magna Carta provides that: ‗All weirs for the
future shall be utterly put down
on the Thames and Medway and throughout all England, except on
the seashore‘. 30
(n 8) [20].
-
LUMS Law Journal 2017: 4 (1)
102
entered into the jurisprudence of the United States, in the
Arnold case31
quoted as;
[T]he government could not, consistently with the principles
of the law of nature and the constitution of a well-ordered
society, make a direct and absolute grant of the waters of
the
state, divesting all the citizens of their common right.32
The PTD further made progress in American jurisprudence in the
case of
Illinois Central Railroad,33
wherein the State of Illinois granted land to the
Illinois Central Railroad in 1869.34
After four years, the State of Illinois
rescinded the land and Illinois Railroad sued the government.
The court
declared that:
[A] title held in trust for the people of the state that they
may
enjoy the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce over
them and have the liberty of fishing therein freed from the
obstruction or interference of private parties.35
The PTD did not remain confined to Europe and the United
States.
This doctrine found its way into Indian jurisprudence in M.C.
Mehta case
where the Division Bench held that ‗the State is the trustee of
all natural
resources which are by nature meant for public use and
enjoyment‘.36
Moreover, the PTD was also incorporated in some state
constitutions in the
United States such as those of Wisconsin37
and Pennsylvania.38
Development and Application of the Public Trust Doctrine in
Pakistan
Professor Sax argues that judicial attitude matters a lot in the
advancement of
the PTD.39
It has also been argued that judges should take action when
officials are destroying the environment or in the same spirit
are failing to
protect it.40
The seemingly proactive attitude of the courts in Pakistan
is
31
(n 3). 32
(n 8) [20]. 33
(n 16). 34
James L. Huffman ‗Why Liberating the Public Trust Doctrine is
Bad for the Public‘
(2015) Environmental Law 337-377. 35
(n 8) [21]. 36
M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388. 37
(n 15) 32, 33. 38
(n 15) 33, 34 - Pennsylvania Constitution, art. I, s. 27. 39
(n 14) 521. 40
(n 17).
-
Putting Public Trust Doctrine to Work: A Study of Judicial
Intervention in Environmental
Justice
103
reflected in many suo moto actions taken by the judiciary to
enforce
environmental laws.41
The courts in Pakistan have applied this doctrine in
two ways; directly and impliedly. The doctrine was applied
impliedly, albeit
without referring its name, in the cases of Ardeshir
Cowasjee42
and Salt
Miners.43
However, after the case of Sindh Institute of Urology and
Transplantation,44
the courts are now applying it directly.
In the case of Shehla Zia, the seminal case on environmental law
in
Pakistan, the Supreme Court‘s Larger Bench defined the word
‗life‘ under
Article 9 read with Article 14 of the Constitution to include
‗life includes all
such amenities and facilities which a person born in a free
country, is entitled
to enjoy with dignity, legally and constitutionally‘.45
This landmark case sets
out a conceptual framework on which the judiciary is now heavily
leaning
on. The facts in the Shehla Zia case were that the petitioners
had filed a suit
against the Water and Power Development Authority (‗WAPDA‘) for
its
construction of a grid station in their residential area. The
petitioners were of
the view that the electromagnetic field created by the grid
station could pose
a threat to the health of the residents. This case is
significant for a number of
reasons. Firstly, it expanded the definition of the right to
life by including
environmental rights within its ambit. Secondly, it laid the
foundation for the
rule of the Precautionary Principle, which has a close relation
with the PTD.
Thirdly, the court relied on the Rio Declaration 1992 stating
that it should be
implemented at least in spirit, if not in letter, despite it not
being directly
binding on the SC.46
Fourthly, the court also initiated a tradition of
appointing a commission47
which set the tone for the development of the
PTD. Lastly, but most importantly, the court interpreted the
term ‗right to
life‘ to include environmental health, clean atmosphere, and
unpolluted
environment. This case has been referred to in almost all
subsequent
environmental law cases in Pakistan.
The judiciary in Pakistan does not distinguish the PTD from the
right
to life, unlike courts in India. In India, the right to life
includes ‗the right to
have a healthy environment and right to livelihood‘ under
Article 21 of
41
Human Rights Case 1994 SC 102; New Murree Project 2010 SCMR 361;
Cutting of Trees
2011 SCMR 1743. 42
Ardeshir Cowasjee v Karachi Building Control Authority 1999 SCMR
2883. 43
General Secretary, West Pakistan Salt Miners Labour Union (CBA),
Khewra,
Jhelum v Director, Industries and Mineral Development, Punjab,
Lahore 1994 SCMR 2061. 44
(n 7). 45
(n 4) [12]. 46
Ibid. 47
Ibid, [16] - The commission was appointed to study the scheme,
planning, device and
technique employed by WAPDA.
-
LUMS Law Journal 2017: 4 (1)
104
Indian Constitution. The PTD is the third aspect of the right to
life.48
As the
courts in Pakistan have been heavily relying on Indian case law,
the PTD is
impliedly included in the right to life. Additionally, the
doctrine has also
branded environmental rights as fundamental human rights.49
Direct Application of the Public Trust Doctrine
The direct application of the PTD by courts in Pakistan started
in 2005. The
Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation was the first
case in which
the court specifically referred to the PTD. In this case, Nestle
wanted to
acquire a certain piece of land for setting up a water plant,
which could have
had a potentially negative impact on sub-soil water. The court
decided the
case and declared certain resources such as clean air, water,
and forests as
the public trust. The court directed state officials to make
these resources
available to everyone irrespective of economic
inequalities.50
The court ruled
that it was the duty of the state to protect natural resources
for the people and
for future generations. The conversion of these natural
resources into private
use would hamper fundamental rights of the citizens.
Therefore,
underground water belonged to the general public.51
This is an important
case for three reasons. First, the court applied the PTD for the
very first time
since it was envisioned by Professor Sax. Second, this was the
first time that
the court expanded the doctrine to include ground-water as a
natural
resource. Third, that in this case the court referred to
Principle 2 of the
Stockholm Declaration 1972, which safeguards natural resources
like earth,
air, water, land, flora, and fauna for the benefits of present
and future
generations.52
Chronologically, the second case on this subject was the Moulvi
Iqbal
case,53
wherein the petitioner challenged the construction of a golf
course on
a public park. The Supreme Court declared that the conversion of
a public
park into a golf course was a violation of the fundamental
rights of the
citizens. The then Chief Justice, Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry observed
that
‗reasonable access to the sea and the right to cross the dry
sand beach is an
integral component of the public trust doctrine‘.54
48
(n 24). 49
(n 8) [24]. 50
(n 7) [24]. 51
Ibid, [15]. 52
Ibid, para 13. 53
Moulvi Iqbal Haider v Capital Development Authority and others
2006 PLD SC 394. 54
Ibid.
-
Putting Public Trust Doctrine to Work: A Study of Judicial
Intervention in Environmental
Justice
105
Another case which further strengthened the inclusion of the
PTD
into Pakistani jurisprudence was the case of Muhammad Tariq
Abbasi.
Justice Sarmad Osmany invoked Article 9 of the Constitution to
hold that
‗the doctrine of public trust has long been recognised all over
the world,
which enjoins the State to preserve and protect the public
interest in beaches,
Lakeshores etc‘.55
This case was important because the PTD was expanded
to include the right to access to public places. This case gave
an additional
remedy to citizens for unhindered access to public places in
addition to the
one provided by the Constitution.
The true nature of the doctrine was reflected in the Cutting of
Trees
suo moto matter,56
wherein the petitioner objected to the widening of the
Canal Bank Road, Lahore. The Division Bench of the Lahore High
Court
after explaining the doctrine declared the green belt of the
road as a public
trust.57
This case was the most important PTD case because it explained
the
PTD comprehensively for the first time in the context of
Pakistan. Firstly,
the court appointed the renowned environmentalist Dr. Pervez
Hassan as a
mediator. Secondly, the court delineated the scope and parameter
of the
PTD58
using an influential article by Professor Serena M.
Williams.59
Thirdly, the court determined the scope of the doctrine by
indicating that
public property could not be converted into private property
except for a
public purpose. Lastly, the court explained the concept of
sustainable
development,60
a closely related concept of the PTD.
Four years later, the doctrine emerged again in the Lahore
Bachao
Tehrik case..61
Speaking on behalf of the Larger Bench of the Supreme
Court, Justice Mian Saqib Nisar demarcated the scope of the
doctrine, stating
that ‗… a public trust resource cannot be converted into private
use or any
other use other than a public purpose…‘62
In the same year, in the case of Young Doctors Association,
the
petitioners challenged the Signal Free Junction at Azadi Chowk
in Lahore
because it was purportedly affecting a portion of the Lady
Willingdon
55
Muhammad Tariq Abbasi v Defence Housing Authority 2007 CLC 1358
[Karachi]. 56
(n 8). 57
Ibid, [35]. 58
Ibid, [32]. 59
(n 15). 60
(n 8), [36]-[39]. 61
Lahore Bachao Tehrik v Dr Iqbal Muhammad Chauhan and others 2015
SCMR 1520. 62
Ibid, [20].
-
LUMS Law Journal 2017: 4 (1)
106
Hospital. The court rejected the petitioner‘s claim that the
scheme violated
the PTD and the concept of sustainable development.63
For this the court
heavily relied on the Cutting of Trees case, wherein it was
declared that ‗the
diversion of one half acre of park space was upheld under the
public trust
doctrine as ―merely a diversion of a minimal quantum of public
land from
one public purpose to another public purpose‖‘.64
The latest case on the PTD is the Imrana Tiwana case,65
which widened
the sphere of the doctrine by including the process of the
Environment
Impact Assessment (‗EIA‘) in it. In the Imrana Tiwana case, the
petitioner
challenged the Signal Free Corridor Project before the Larger
Bench of the
Lahore High Court. The petitioner contended that the Lahore
Development
Authority never undertook the EIA.66
The court ruled in favour of the
petitioner stating that:
[T]o us environmental justice is an amalgam of the
constitutional principles of democracy, equality, social,
economic and political justice guaranteed under our
Objectives Resolution, the fundamental right to life,
liberty
and human dignity (article 14) which include the
international
environmental principles of sustainable development,
precautionary principle, environmental impact assessment,
inter and intra-generational equity and public trust
doctrine.67
The court suspended further work on the signal free corridor.
The case was
important for the following reasons. Firstly, the court declared
that the
Environment Protection Agency (EPA) was suffering from a
complete
‗Regulatory Capture‘.68
Secondly, the court referred principle 1 of the
Stockholm Declaration, which stated:
Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and
adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality
that
permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a
solemn
responsibility to protect and improve the environment for
present and future generations.69
63
Young Doctors Association v Government of Pakistan 2015 PLD 112,
[14]. 64
Ibid, [10]. 65
Imrana Tiwana v Province of Punjab PLD 2015 Lahore 522. 66
Ibid. 67
Ibid, [25]. 68
Ibid, [33]. 69
Ibid, [24].
-
Putting Public Trust Doctrine to Work: A Study of Judicial
Intervention in Environmental
Justice
107
Thirdly, the court observed that the purpose of environmental
laws is to
protect life and nature which include ‗the principle of
‗Sustainable
Development‘,70
the Precautionary Principle,71
the EIA, inter and intra-
generational equity and the PTD‘.72
Finally, the court explained the scope,
meaning and the review process of the EIA.73
The case further expanded the
PTD by including the EIA in it.74
However, the Supreme Court overturned
the decision of the Lahore High Court by stating that the
Objectives
Resolution, Principles of Policy, and Article 2-A of the
Constitution could
not be used to strike down laws.75
Implied Application of the Public Trust Doctrine
The PTD was applied impliedly in numerous environmental law
cases in
Pakistan. Although, the courts in Pakistan have applied various
concepts
relating to the doctrine, they have never specifically mentioned
the PTD. The
courts delivered judgments on the basis of public policy and the
right to life
by relying solely on the above mentioned Shehla Zia case.76
Additionally,
the courts applied various principles of the doctrine including
the principle
related to the availability of public property to the general
public, the
particular type of usage of the public property, right to have
clean water, and
non-conversion of public property to private property.
Justice Munib Akhtar has provided a list of superior court cases
in
Pakistan wherein the PTD was impliedly applied.77
These include cases
70
Ibid, [35] - ‗Development that meets the needs of current
generations without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs‘. 71
Ibid. ‗Principle 15: In order to protect the environment, the
precautionary approach shall
be widely applied by States according to their capabilities.
Where there are threats of serious
or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall
not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation‘. 72
Ibid, [25]. 73
Ibid, [35]-[41]. 74
It is important to note that section 2(xi) read with section 12
of the Pakistan
Environmental Protection Act, 1997 also deals with EIA and its
requirements. 75
Faryal Siddiqui, ‗Signal Free Corridor: A Reflection on
Inter-Governmental Power
Struggle, Judicial Restraint and Regulatory Capture‘ last
assessed 1 September 2017. 76
(n 4). 77
Justice Munib Akhtar, ‗Environmental Law Enforcement and
Judicial Power: the View
from Pakistan‘ (2012)
-
LUMS Law Journal 2017: 4 (1)
108
related to housing schemes,78
power plants,79
companies‘ usage of antennae
and towers,80
construction of high-rise buildings,81
air pollution (asbestos),82
CNG stations,83
parks,84
disposal of effluent, waste and water,85
and smoke
pollution.86
The first case in which the PTD was impliedly applied was the
case
of Ardeshir Cowasjee, wherein a larger bench of the Supreme
Court was
tasked with resolving the issue of the construction of a
revolving restaurant
on a plot near a public park instead of
commercial-cum-residential building.
The court observed that the plot near the public park must be
used for the
construction of a revolving restaurant for the benefit of the
people. The court
held that ‗the use of the Park involves enjoyment of life which
is covered by
the word life employed in Article 9 of the Constitution as
interpreted by this
Court‘.87
This case is significant because it expounded on Professor
Sax‘s
concept of non-alienation of public property to private
ownership was
impliedly applied. Additionally, the court also declared that
the plot in
question must be used for a ‗particular type of usage‘, i.e. for
the
construction of the revolving restaurant. This concept of
‗particular type of
usage of public property‘ is a central pillar of Professor Sax‘s
theory. To
clarify the last point, he gives an example of San Francisco
Bay, which must
be used for commercial or amenity purposes only and must not be
used for
wp-content/uploads/2013/07/2-Env-Law-Enforcement-and-Judicial-Power-View-from-
Pakistan-J-Munib-Akhtar.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=pk>
assessed 28 June 2016. 78
Re: Environmental hazard of the proposed New Murree Project 2010
SCMR 361. 79
Shehri CBE v Government of Pakistan and others 2007 CLD 783, PLD
2007 Karachi 293. 80
Rabiya Associates v Zong (China Mobile) and others PLD 2011
Karachi 132. 81
Zubaida A. Sattar v Karachi Building Control Authority and
others 1999 SCMR 243; Al
Jamiaul Arabia Ahsanul Aloom and Jamia Masjid and others v Syed
Sibte Hasan and others
1999 YLR 1634; Zahir Ansari and others v Karachi Development
Authority and others PLD
2000 Karachi 168; Shamsul Arfin and others v Karachi Building
Control Authority and
others PLD 2007 Karachi 498; Navid Hussain and others v City
District Government
Karachi and others 2007 CLC 912; Farooq Hamid v LDA and others
2008 SCMR 483;
Nighat Jamal v Province of Sindh and others 2010 YLR 2624;
Muhammad Aslam v Real
Builders and others PLD 2011 Karachi 204. 82
Dadex Eternit Ltd. v Haroon Ahmed and others PLD 2011 Karachi
435. 83
Ummatullah v Province of Sindh and others PLD 2010 Karachi 236;
see also Sultan
Ahmed v Dr. Shaheen A. Hussain and others 2009 MLD 231. 84
Muhammad Tariq Abbasi and others v Defence Housing Authority and
others 2007 CLC
1358; Shehri and others v Province of Sindh and others 2001 YLR
1139. 85
Muhammad Shafiq and others v Arif Hameed Mehar and others PLD
2008 SC 716, 2008
CLD 1103; Muhammad Yousaf and others v Province of Punjab and
others 2003 CLC 576;
Anjum Irfan v Lahore Development Authority and others PLD 2002
Lahore 555. 86
Syed Mansoor Ali Shah v Government of Punjab and others PLD 2007
Lahore 403. 87
(n 44) [12].
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Tz8MI1po70YJ:ajne2.itkeep.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/2-Env-Law-Enforcement-and-Judicial-Power-View-from-Pakistan-J-Munib-Akhtar.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=pkhttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Tz8MI1po70YJ:ajne2.itkeep.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/2-Env-Law-Enforcement-and-Judicial-Power-View-from-Pakistan-J-Munib-Akhtar.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=pk
-
Putting Public Trust Doctrine to Work: A Study of Judicial
Intervention in Environmental
Justice
109
trash disposal or any housing project.88
A similar issue was raised in Shehri-
CBE, wherein the Supreme Court stopped the construction of a
multiplex
cinema on a ground where the public used to play cricket,
football, and
hockey.89
In the case of Salt Miners, the petitioners filed a suit for
the
enforcement of their right to clean water. The defendant,
Industries and
Mineral Development Punjab, was responsible for polluting the
water
reservoir and reduction of the water catchment area. The
petitioners
contended that the impugned project would contaminate the
watercourse and
reservoirs. Justice Saleem Akhter quoted the Shehla Zia case
extensively and
ruled that ‗the right to have water free from pollution and
contamination is a
right to life itself‘.90
The court ordered the Pakistan Mineral Development
Corporation to install an additional pipeline to preserve clean
water.
Additionally, the court also directed the establishment of a
commission to
investigate the mining operation.
In the same year, in the Human Rights case, the Supreme Court
took
suo moto action on a daily newspaper report regarding dumping of
nuclear
and industrial waste in the coastal land of Baluchistan. The
Supreme Court
ruled that:
The coast land of Baluchistan is about 450 miles long. To
dump waste materials including nuclear waste from the
developed countries would not only be a hazard to the health
of the people but also to the environment and the marine
life
in the region.91
The latest case in which the doctrine has been impliedly applied
is the New
Murree Project case. The Supreme Court disbanded the project by
raising
the corollary principles of the PTD: Sustainable Development and
Protection
of the environment for future generations. The full bench of the
Supreme
Court declared that the project was an environmental hazard
owing to the
fact that acres of forests could be affected by it.92
Methodology of the Courts
88
(n 14) 477. 89
(n 82). 90
(n 45). 91
Human Rights Case (Environmental Pollution in Balochistan) PLD
1994 SC 102. 92
Suo Motu Case No. 10 of 2005 2010 SCMR 361.
-
LUMS Law Journal 2017: 4 (1)
110
The courts in Pakistan have adopted a unique methodology in
applying the
PTD, which is slightly advanced as compared to the methodology
applied in
other civil rights matters. The courts equated environmental
rights to
fundamental human rights. Hence, the doctrine ‗seems embedded in
[A]rticle
9 of the [C]onstitution‘.93
Additionally, the courts gave injunctive relief to
the petitioners in several cases, but no money damages were
awarded till
now.94
The courts in Pakistan constituted advisory committees and
commissions for technical assistance.95
Furthermore, the courts have relied
on international environmental treaties like the Stockholm‘s
Declaration
1972, the Rio Declaration 1992, and have also requested
assistance from
leading experts.96
Judicial intervention in environmental matters is a positive
development. Yet there is no substitute for a clear-cut
environmental right
provision in the constitution. The government should
incorporate
environmental right in Chapter I of the Constitution as it is
done in South
Africa by insertion of section 24 in the constitution which
reads as:
In terms of section 24 of the Bill of Rights, it has been
unequivocally declared that everyone has the right: a) to an
environment that is not harmful to their health or
well-being;
and b) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of
present and future generations, through reasonable
legislative
and other measures that:
i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation; ii) promote
conservation; and iii) secure ecologically sustainable development
and use of
natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and
social development.97
Part IV: Geological Scope and Parameter of the Public Trust
Doctrine
Professor Sax, in his theory, explained that the PTD would apply
to natural
resources like forests, ecosystems, and fisheries.98
Harrison C. Dunning
93
Michael C. Blumm and Rachel D. Guthrie, ‗Internationalizing the
Public Trust Doctrine:
Natural Law and Constitutional and Statutory Approaches to
Fulfilling the Saxion Vision‘
(2011) 45 UCDL Rev. 766. 94
Ibid, 770. 95
Parvez Hassan, ‗The Role of the Judiciary and Judicial
Commissions on Sustainable
Development Issues in South Asia.‘ (2007) 37 Envtl. Pol'y &
L. 186. 96
Ibid. 97
(n 8) [31].
-
Putting Public Trust Doctrine to Work: A Study of Judicial
Intervention in Environmental
Justice
111
identified the practice of courts in the United States in three
important areas
of natural resource requiring attention: navigation, commerce,
and fishing.99
The PTD was also applied in parks,100
wildlife and wildlife habitat,101
swimming, fishing, pleasure boating, sailing, environmental
preservation,102
and enjoying of scenic beauty.103
In the case of Marks v. Whitney, the
California Supreme Court ruled that the purposes of the doctrine
are
sufficiently flexible in order to protect the
environment.104
A unique application of this doctrine is to be found in the case
of
National Audubon Society,105
which entailed the preservation of the land for
ecological and recreational use106
including ‗ecological study, open space,
fish and wildlife habitat and scenic resources‘.107
In the case of Kootenai
Environmental Alliance, the court also included aesthetic beauty
and water
quality in the PTD.108
In Pakistan, the scope of the doctrine is very broad.‘109
The doctrine
has been directly applied in cases involving waters,110
recreational usage of
public property,111
parks,112
green belts,113
and the conversion of public
property into private property.114
98
Alyson C. Flournoy, ‗The Case for the National Environmental
Legacy Act‘ in Alyson C.
Flournoy and David M. Driesen (eds), Beyond Environmental Law:
Policy Proposals for a
Better Environmental Future (Cambridge University Press 2010) 7.
99
Harrison C. Dunning, ‗The Public Trust: A Fundamental Doctrine
of American Property
Law‘ (1988-1989) 19 Envtl. L. 515, 517. 100
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v Volpe 401 U.S. 402
(1971). According to
Serena M. Williams, it is the most frequently cited decision in
the history of environmental
law. See also Paepke v Public Bldg. Commn. 263 N.E.2d 11, 15
(Ill. 1970); Timothy
Christian Schs. v Village of W. Springs 675 N.E.2d (Ill. 1996).
101
(n 26) 4 - Gary Meyers has argued that the public trust doctrine
can be the vehicle for a
more holistic approach to the management of wildlife and
wildlife habitat. 102
Janice Lawrence, ‗Lyon and Fogerty: Unprecedented Extensions of
the Public Trust‘
(1982) 70 (4) California Law Review 1138, 1149. 103
(n 15) 33 - State v Town of Linn 556 N.W.2d 394, 402 (Wis. App.
1996); State v Public
Servo Commn. 81 N.W.2d 71, 74 (Wis. 1957). 104
(n 10) 1110. 105
National Audubon Society v Superior Court of Alpine County 658
P.2d 709 (Cal. 1983),
cert. denied, 464 U.S. 977 (1983). 106
(n 26) 7. 107
Helen Ingram and Cy R. Oggins, ‗The Public Trust Doctrine and
Community Values in
Water‘ (1992) 32 Nat. Resources J. 517. 108
(n 112) 523, 524 - Kootenai Environmental Alliance v Panhandle
Yacht Club 671 P,2d
1085 (Idaho 1983). 109
(n 97) 769. 110
(n 7). 111
Muhammad Tariq Abbasi v Defence Housing Authority 2007 CLC
1358.
-
LUMS Law Journal 2017: 4 (1)
112
Furthermore, the doctrine is also implicitly applied in various
cases
such as those involving particular type of usage of public
property,115
clean
water,116
environmental hazard,117
housing schemes,118
power plants,119
cellular companies‘ usage of antennae and towers,120
construction of high-
rise buildings,121
air pollution (asbestos),122
CNG stations,123
parks,124
disposal of effluent, waste, and water,125
and smoke pollution.126
In Pakistan, the scope of the PTD is addressed in two
important
environmental law cases. In the Cutting of Trees case127
, the court explained
the scope of the doctrine. The Constitution obliges the courts
to observe
judicial restraint in policy matters. The court decided that the
doctrine only
intervenes in matters wherein the governmental authorities
violate a law or a
constitutional provision ‗or when it relates to the enforcement
of a
fundamental right which inter alia includes environmental human
rights‘.128
Justice Jillani posed the following question to determine the
scope of the
doctrine:
How far the public or private project can be stalled by
invoking this concept and to what extent the public use of a
trust resource can be converted to private use or for a
different
public purpose?129
112
Moulvi Iqbal Haider v Capital Development Authority and others
PLD 2006 SC 394. 113
(n 8). 114
(n 64). 115
(n 44); Shehri-CBE v LDA 2006 SCMR 1202. 116
(n 45). 117
(n 95). 118
(n 81). 119
(n 82). 120
(n 83). 121
(n 84). 122
(n 85). 123
(n 86). 124
(n 86). 125
(n 88). 126
(n 89). 127
(n 8). 128
Ibid, [53]. 129
Ibid, [32].
-
Putting Public Trust Doctrine to Work: A Study of Judicial
Intervention in Environmental
Justice
113
For this, he quoted an article by Professor Williams,130
who identified two
broader approaches: the legislative approach and the substantive
test
approach131
to determine the scope of the PTD.
According to Professor Williams, the doctrine is not an
absolute
concept and has minor limitations.132
The two approaches mentioned above
are widely pertinent in the application of the doctrine. The
first is the
‗Legislative Approach‘ or the ‗Massachusetts Approach‘. The case
of Gould
v. Greylock prohibits ‗alienation or diversion of parkland
without plain and
explicit legislation to that end‘.133
Therefore, the doctrine can be
circumvented through legislation.
The second approach is the ‗Substantive Approach‘ or
‗Wisconsin
Approach‘. The two important Wisconsin cases134
describe the five
conditions to alienate or divert a public land. These conditions
are as
follows:
(1) that public bodies would control use of the area in
question;
(2) that the area would be devoted to public purposes and open
to the public;
(3) the diminution of the area of original use would be small
compared with the entire area;
(4) that none of the public uses of the original area would be
destroyed or greatly impaired; and
(5) that the disappointment of those wanting to use the area of
new use for former purposes was negligible when
compared to the greater convenience to be afforded to
those members of the public who are using the new
facility.135
In the case of Lahore Bachao Tehrik, the Supreme Court delimited
the scope
of the doctrine declaring that public property could not be
converted into
private property. However, in the instant case, it was held that
the widening
130
(n 15). 131
(n 8) [32]. 132
(n 15) 40. 133
(n 15) 41 - Gould v Greylock Reservation Commn 215 N.E.2d 114,
121 (Mass. 1966);
Williams v Gallatin 128 N.E. 121, 122 (N.Y. 1920). 134
(n 15) 42 - City of Madison v State 83 N.W.2d 674 (Wis. 1957);
State v Pub. Service
Commn. 81 N.W.2d 71 (Wis. 1957). 135
(n 15) 42.
-
LUMS Law Journal 2017: 4 (1)
114
of a road is for the benefit of the general public and so should
be allowed. In
this case, the purpose of widening the road was to ease traffic
congestion and
to facilitate commuters.136
The courts demarcated the scope of the PTD by declaring that
even if
any project is beneficial to the general public but was
negligibly violating the
doctrine, the PTD would not apply. In other words, in public
good projects,
the doctrine has a slightly limited scope.
Part V: Limitation of the Public Trust Doctrine
James Huffman is one of the critics of the PTD. He maintains
that the PTD
violates the private property rights of individuals, the popular
sovereignty,
the rule of law, and the doctrine of separation of power.137
Experts question the common law background of the doctrine and
its
impact on administrative and statutory governance.138
William Araiza also
criticizes the common law foundation of the doctrine and
questions the
interaction of an unwritten common law doctrine with
constitutionally
protected environmental rights.139
According to Dave Owen, it is a doctrine
that has disputed ambiguous and old roots.140
Araiza also argues that the
legal foundation of the PTD is murky with limited scope and
unsound policy
supports.141
The doctrine‘s legal underpinnings are vague and its scope
is
murky and paradoxical.142
Owen argues that often high-profile doctrines do
not work well similar to statutory provisions of law.143
This is also one of the
reasons that land-mark cases often have limited scope.144
Critics also question the judicial logic of giving overriding
effect to
the doctrine as opposed to a piece of legislation especially
considering the
fact that the latter can supersede common law.145
Araiza maintains that the
136
Ibid, [20]. 137
James L. Huffman, ‗Protecting the Great Lakes: The Allure and
Limitations of the Public
Trust Doctrine.‘ (2016) 93 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 239, 271.
138
(n 10) 1151. 139
William D. Araiza, ‗The Public trust Doctrine as an Interpretive
Canon‘ (2011) 45 UCDL
Rev. 693, 702. 140
(n 10) 1102. 141
(n 145) 693. 142
Paul Schinner, ‗Wisconsin's Public Trust Doctrine: A New
Framework for Understanding
the Judiciary's Role in Protecting Water Resources.‘ (2015) Wis.
L. Rev. 1129, 1136. 143
(n 10) 1102. 144
Ibid, 1102. 145
(n 145) 702.
-
Putting Public Trust Doctrine to Work: A Study of Judicial
Intervention in Environmental
Justice
115
doctrine provides the courts with wide-ranging authority.146
The PTD has
become equivalent to judicial constitution-making in the field
of
environmental law.147
Huffman argues that judges have an important but a
limited role in the constitutional republics and hence they
should exercise
restraint in issues related to public policy.148
The courts cannot determine
public good simply by becoming acquainted with the view of
self-interested
parties on a particular issue.149
Moreover, judges should not interfere with
affairs of the legislators, since the latter have the duty to
make laws as per
the principle of separation of powers.150
Public good and individual liberty
are better safeguarded when there is a clear-cut separation of
power between
the legislature, executive, and the judiciary.151
The issue remains that courts
are ignoring popular sovereignty in the application of the
PTD.152
This is
because courts do not have the authority to invalidate laws
enacted by the
legislators if they are in tandem with popular demand. If the
courts invalidate
duly enacted laws on the basis of popular demand, it means that
they are
ignoring popular sovereignty.153
James Huffman laments that the constitution
of the United States, which is based on popular sovereignty,
relies on the
monarchical doctrine or the concept of parliamentary
sovereignty.154
He
argues that the PTD is not a rule of law because it is
judge-made law. He
further argues that the PTD, being judge-made law, is not a rule
of law. He
states,
The latter approach, rooted in the supply-side view that
judges
should be attentive to public needs and should rewrite the
law
accordingly, positions the judge as lawmaker in the context
of
particular disputes. This is the rule of the judge, not the rule
of
law.155
Huffman further argues that,
Along the lines of the earlier hypothetical judicial
holding,
imagine a law, judicially declared or statutorily enacted,
providing that property owners may do as they please with
146
Ibid, 738. 147
(n 148). 148
(n 36) 341. 149
Ibid, 374. 150
Ibid, 375. 151
(n 143) 267. 152
Ibid, 267. 153
Ibid, 268. 154
Ibid, 269. 155
Ibid, 269.
-
LUMS Law Journal 2017: 4 (1)
116
their property subject to the unlimited discretion of the state
to
restrict use of private property. Would judicial adherence
to
such a rule be consistent with the rule of law? Of course
not.
A property right thus guaranteed would be no right at all.
Enforcing such a rule as precedent would be a mockery of the
rule of law.156
Moreover, it is contended that the PTD is also the antithesis to
the
economic prosperity of a country. Economic prosperity is vital
for
infrastructure, environmental protection, and education.157
‗By making
private property rights increasingly contingent, a liberated
public trust
doctrine will not serve the public good‘.158
Richard Lazarus argues that
people do not need the doctrine due to the development of
statutory and
administrative environmental law.159
He argues that the ‗doctrine would
undermine regulatory environmental law by breathing life into a
common
law – and property-based legal scheme that had operated to the
detriment of
environmental protection‘.160
Furthermore, the economy of a country will
wither away in absence of proper property rights.161
The issue of judicial restraint has been raised in numerous
cases in
Pakistan. In the Cutting of Trees case, Justice Jillani observed
that many
times the executive‘s policy actions were brought before the
court having
socio-political or economic connotation. The constitution
demands judicial
restraint in respect of the trichotomy of power. However, the
court intervenes
whenever the Executive‘s policies and actions violate any
provision of law
or constitutional provision or fundamental human rights
including
environmental human rights.162
In the Young Doctors Association case, the
court decided a limited application and scope of the PTD by
deciding that if
a project was launched by a competent authority after consulting
the relevant
departments or agencies and taking expert opinion into account
from reputed
firms like NESPAK, then the issue of public trust would not
arise.163
In the case of Lahore Conservation Society, the petitioners
challenged the construction of a flyover. They were of the view
that the
156
Ibid, 270. 157
(n 143) 374. 158
Ibid, 375. 159
(n 10) 1121. 160
Ibid. 161
(n 143) 263. 162
(n 8) [53]. 163
(n 66).
-
Putting Public Trust Doctrine to Work: A Study of Judicial
Intervention in Environmental
Justice
117
construction would require cutting down a number of plants and
trees, which
would adversely affect the health of the inhabitants of the
area. The court
dismissed the petition on the ground that the flyover would be
very
beneficial for the citizens especially in the future as it would
solve the
problem of traffic blockages. Moreover, it was stated that the
construction of
the flyover would also save precious time.164
Similarly, in the case of Kamil
Khan Mumtaz (Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project Case), the
Lahore
High Court noted that the court was not authorised to entertain
matters
regarding policy matters and decision-making of competent
authorities.
However, in the event of violation of the law or irrational,
unreasonable, and
arbitrary decision making, the courts can direct the state or
government to
strictly adhere to the law.165
Babcock argues that despite all its criticism, the PTD acts as a
gap
filler in the absence of a positive law on the subject.166
For this, he gives an
example of the formation of Executive Economic Zone (‗EEZ‘)
which deals
with the issue of endangered wild fish owing to a regulatory
gap.167
The PTD
has the potential to fill the vacuum. This doctrine is
particularly essential in
common property resources because these resources are not fully
protected
by positive law.168
It can also address regulatory commons which arises
‗when there is not ―a matching political-legal regime, leaving
the underlying
social ill unattended.‖‘169
Furthermore, Babcock argues that the doctrine‘s
historical roots are less important than the social purpose it
is performing.170
Similarly, he favours judicial intervention in environmental
justice by
quoting the words of Professor Felix Cohen who states that:
A judicial decision is a social event. Like the enactment of
a
Federal statute, a judicial decision is an intersection of
social
forces: Behind the decision are social forces that play upon
it
to give it a resultant momentum and direction; beyond the
decision are human activities affected by it.171
164
Lahore Conservation Society through President and 3 others vs.
Chief Minister of Punjab
and another PLD 2011 Lahore 344. 165
Kamil Khan Mumtaz v. Government of Punjab Writ Petition No.
39291/2015, [27]. 166
(n 11) 394. 167
Ibid, 395. 168
Ibid, 406. 169
Ibid, 406. 170
Ibid, 398. 171
Ibid, 399.
-
LUMS Law Journal 2017: 4 (1)
118
He argues that because of the PTD many states have legislated
new laws.172
Albert Lin argues that the doctrine is an effective weapon in
preventing
governments and private parties from violating public
rights.173
He argues
that the PTD protects public interest similar to Tort‘s Public
Nuisance
doctrine. It should be noted that both of the doctrines have a
common law
background.174
In both doctrines, judges take decisions regarding public
policy considerations.175
Lin acknowledges that the doctrine developed
through individual case law, which works well in a limited
context. But this
individual case by case solution is inadequate for comprehensive
regulation.
He argues that although statutory laws protect the environment
directly and
systematically, yet there always remains some lacunae. The
doctrine is a
perfect gap-filling and corrective device to remove lacunae left
by the
statutes.176
Some scholars point out that the doctrine is normally applied
by
generalist judges, who often lack expertise in environmental
matters.177
Richard Lazarus maintains that instead of the doctrine, we
should expand
regulatory power to resolve environmental disputes.178
However, Lin argues
that the doctrine must be taken as ‗corrective responses to
political failures in
the democratic process than as undemocratic or unaccountable
interventions‘.179
The doctrine has the prowess to fix the inability of
environmental laws and addresses problems like declining
fisheries, climate
change, and toxic substances.180
Justice Tassaduq Jillani has perfectly summarized the
intervention of
the judiciary in environmental matters in the following
words:
The rationale behind public interest litigation in
developing
countries like Pakistan and India is the social and
educational
backwardness of its people, the dwarfed development of law
of tort, lack of developed institutions to attend to the
matters
of public concern, the general inefficacy and corruption at
various levels. In such a socioeconomic and political
milieu,
the non-intervention by Court in complaints of matters of
172
Ibid, 410. 173
Albert C. L, ‗Public Trust and Public Nuisance: Common Law Peas
in a Pod.‘ (2011) 45
UCDL Rev. 1075, 1077. 174
Ibid, 1078. 175
Ibid, 1083. 176
Ibid, 1083. 177
Ibid, 1083. 178
Ibid, 1084. 179
Ibid, 1084. 180
Ibid, 1085.
-
Putting Public Trust Doctrine to Work: A Study of Judicial
Intervention in Environmental
Justice
119
public concern will amount to abdication of judicial
authority.181
Conclusion
The courts in Pakistan apply the PTD in its true letter and
spirit; which
maintains that certain natural resources are inalienable public
trusts, the
government is the trustee of these natural resources and the
citizens as
beneficiaries may take recourse to the courts if anyone tries to
alienate,
modify or destroy these resources. It is a common law doctrine
which has its
roots in Roman and English laws. Environmental experts also
criticise its
common law historical roots. Critics state that the PTD violates
the property
rights of individuals, the popular sovereignty, and the doctrine
of separation
of powers. They also criticise the role of the judiciary in the
application of
the PTD. They argue that the courts should have limited
authority in
environmental matters. The courts should rely on the statutory
laws instead
of the PTD. However, environmental experts defend the doctrine
and state
that it can be an important gap-filler. It can also play an
important role just
like the common law doctrine of public nuisance.
In Pakistan, prior to the case of Sindh Institute of Urology
and
Transplantation, the doctrine was applied impliedly, but now
courts are
applying it directly. The courts are not only applying this
doctrine in its full
spirit, but they have also successfully determined its true
scope and
parameter. In Pakistan, the scope of the doctrine is very broad.
The doctrine
was directly applied in the cases related to waters,
recreational usage of
public property, parks, green belts, and conversion of public
property into
private property. For this, courts are appointing commissions
and meditators
to provide technical support on issues related to the
environment.
Furthermore, although Article 9 of the Constitution has been
interpreted over time by the constitutional courts to include
environmental
rights and the PTD,182
yet a proper and dedicated piece of legislation would
be more appropriate. The government should consider the place of
such
legislation in Part II, Chapter I of the Constitution as it is
done in South
Africa by the insertion of section 24 in the South African
constitution.183
181
(n 8) [49]. 182
(n 4). 183
(n 8) [31].